Tag Archives: threats

Gun rights are constantly under attack. Anytime a shooting happens, gun control groups and anti-gun legislators spring into action in an effort to condemn our Second Amendment rights.

As soon as Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died, Barack Obama tried to install a new Justice – Merrick Garland – who likely would have been a disaster for our gun rights.

Gun grabbers use any strategy they can, including lies and obfuscation to opportunistically push their agenda, and some gun owners and organizations are only too happy to compromise away our rights – either out of fear of losing even more, a desire to appease the clamoring hordes, or a simple lack of understanding of our gun rights and our Constitution.

With all the threats out there, what do you think is the biggest one? These are hard choices, but intentionally so. Maybe once we figure out what you all believe is the biggest threat and why, we can figure out how to address it. Together.

Provide as much or as little by way of explanation for your choice in the comments, but do comment and let us know the reason for your choice.

The looting, riots, violence, and downright ignorance in the aftermath of the grand jury decision not to indict officer Darren Wilson for shooting thug extraordinaire Michael Brown continue.

In case you were wondering, the horsebuggery currently includes investigation charges into the “family” of Michael Brown for a violent incident that erupted over some Michael Brown merchandise. Yes, you got that right. The worthless “parents” of the dead thug have decided to cash in on their son’s demise, by attacking Brown’s paternal grandmother, who was… trying to cash in on her grandson’s demise. (Try to contain your shock and awe, please.)

Communists and Jihadist scum joined the party, using the Ferguson riots as cover to promote their own agendas. This is nothing new. These parasites do have a tendency to glom on to any protest they can find and use it to screech about overthrowing capitalism, call for a Palestinian state, call for violence against police, you name it.

Tolerant, peaceable social justice warriors chose to threaten a young lady who posted a limerick on Tumbler condemning Michael Brown as a thug. Not only did they expose her identity, phone number, address, and university on the Internet (an odious practice called “doxing” that essentially bullies those who might disagree with you into silence for fear for their very lives), but they threatened to rape her mother, to burn down her house, and decapitate and dismember her. Because social justice for anyone who disagrees with the victim mentality is harassment, death, rape, and dismemberment.

The New York Times chose to publish Darren Wilson’s address and the name of his wife (which they later deleted, while leaving his location intact for any miserable thug to exploit). There was no need to publish this. It was not part of the story, and had no relevance to the case. And yet, reporters Julie Bosman and Campbell Robertson chose to publicize the location of the man’s home, almost certainly exposing him and his family to unhinged Ferguson thugs. The New York Times defended the practice, while a social justice warrior on Twitter took the opportunity to publish the exact address and a photograph of the house that he claimed belongs to Wilson. Care to guess how many threats to burn down the house there were?

And finally, a bit of irony on this Tuesday afternoon.The NYT reporters got a taste of their own medicine, when a number of readers decided that turnabout was fair play and published both journalists’ physical addresses, as well as home and work phone numbers. Oooops! Well, apparently, little Julie Bosman wasn’t comfortable with the level of attention she was getting for publishing an innocent man’s and his family’s location in a national press report, so she waltzed her entitled rear end into the nearest police station and demanded protection… yep… from the police… one of whom she worked to get killed without so much as a thought to the consequences.

Sources inside CPD say that Julie Bosman demanded a level of protection afforded A-List celebs and dignitaries, but an investigation revealed that she was not in any danger, and deserved no more than extra attention paid to her address by patrol.

Despite hundreds of phone calls and not a few unsolicited delivery food sent to her Chicago home Bosman “wasn’t under any real threat” says a Chicago police officer.

“She came in thinking she was Steven Spielberg or something shooting a movie” demanding all kinds of protections says a law enforcement source with knowledge of the Chicago police. “The police laughed at her.”

In a world where the Internet gives everyone easy access to almost any kind of information, the right to self defense becomes even more important.

Dissent is not tolerated, and the Internet is used as a tool to threaten, intimidate, and facilitate violence.

Whereas in the past, information on individuals was largely at the fingertips of government agents, it is now at the disposal of any miscreant with a keyboard, who is too cowardly to confront the subject of his consternation in person, but prefers the cyber world to accept that task en masse on his behalf.

Whereas in the past, one may have had to worry about random break-ins, psychotic madmen, and statist government agents, today we can add vindictive cretins compromising your identity, bank information, school, family, and property by making it publicly available to any thug online.

Whereas in the past, you could disagree with someone’s politics, confront them in person, and even publish your disagreement in a press piece without too much fear for your life, now you have to worry about every social justice warrior whose battle cry of “RACIST!” galvanizes bullying Internet jerks to publish your location, threaten your family, and expose your personally identifiable information (PII) for every sociopath and thug to peruse.

They hide behind the First Amendment, claiming the right to publish anything they want without consideration about the consequences of their actions, and they expect unlimited freedom to do so. Meanwhile, they demand that you be disarmed, bound by bureaucracy, castrated by statism, and punished for the deeds of a tiny minority of others who abuse their Second Amendment rights, even as they use the First Amendment to threaten your well-being, your life, your livelihood, and your loved ones.

This is what we’ve come to, boys and girls. This is the state of our society. If you wonder why more and more of us insist that the government stop infringing on our right to life, right to self defense, and right to keep and bear arms, this is why.

I’ve written numerous times about the gun grabbers’ lack of respect for human life. My contention is that they don’t consider life precious enough to protect. They don’t want the responsibility. They want to rely on the almighty state to protect them, and they want no one else to have that option.

Nowhere is that fact more obvious than on the Mothers Demand Gunsense in America Twitter feed. The #gunsense feed is rife with Mad Mommies and their henpecked husbands dutifully reposting every bit of spew that flies from the ever-so poisonous mind of Shannon Watts – the Bloombergian Stepford Monster who heads the hysterical mommy group.

I won’t post photos of every abusive post, but I would like to point out that their jokes about murder, their sarcastic glee every time a crime is committed with a gun that results in the death of another human being, and their snide and very public hopes for the death of those who oppose them are indicative of a general attitude – an attitude of hatred.

People have a tendency to dehumanize their enemies – to paint them as something soulless and fundamentally different from themselves in order to trick their mind into accepting that the death wishes they heap on the opposition aren’t really being directed at other human beings.

Every story of murder they post, gleefully pointing to death by gun, not considering that the innocent victim in whose blood they dance to advance their political goals is an actual human being…

Every ill wish they heap toward their political opponents, snidely pontificating how great it would be if open carry advocates died by gunfire…

Every threat to call police and report an active shooter or another type of threat when they see a peaceable citizen doing nothing more than exercising the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution…

…is proof that these people couldn’t care less about actual lives.

What they care about is their political agenda, and they will stop at nothing – not even criminal acts – to get what they want.

I carry. I carry concealed. I believe open carry – especially of long guns – is tacky and unnecessary. Firearms are tools of defense – whether from street thugs or from government ones – not props for your attempts to shove your ability to carry down the throats of others. I also believe it’s tactically dumb. It gives those who are intent on committing crimes time to plan out their possible attack against you and robs you of the element of surprise.

That said, I won’t begrudge others their rights. I will not advocate disarmament of those whose tactics I find distasteful. I will not wish death on my opposition.

But then again, I have respect for life – both mine and others.

You obviously can’t say the same for the gun-grabbing crew of Bloomberg’s astroturf kingdom.